Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[caz]

You’ll very quickly discover that meekly towing the party line was not exactly his bag...

...Thus, bearing in mind that we’ve already done a poopoo on the idea that Anderson towed the official line of his police superiors...

Here we are, just two examples where you misspelled "toeing the line", thinking it meant following or being pulled along, as in towing. You do the same on another Hutchinson thread. Typos my arse, Mr. Malaprop.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

How humble of you to admit it. I take it you refer to all those instances where you gleefully add (sic) when quoting from Jon's posts - as if you had any room to talk.

Oh dear.

It's essential not to keep wallowing in your embarrassing ignorance day after day. If you're all out of arguments and have nothing further to contribute to the Hutchinson discussions, just absent yourself from them. It's really not that difficult. Just disappear, or else offer something of better value than your laughable and perpetually unsuccessful attempts to pull me up on my writing. You're tried this tactic for years, and it's never worked - you're not deflating my ego, or bringing me down a peg or two, or making me feel small, or anything like that. I've also got more stamina for petty quarrels than you, so you even lose a point there. Ouch!

Once is a typo, Ben. Twice may be a coincidental typo. But this is a recent phrase you seem to have picked up, and I've seen you use "towing the/this line" at least three if not four times in at least two Hutchinson threads,

Just how sad, bored, and obsessed are you?

Seriously.

Those winter nights in Croydon must just fly by...

Look, I've explained already that that I made a typo. Sometimes - shock horror! - I make the same typo twice as a natural and understandable consequence of writing in haste. Sometimes, I write "you're" instead of "your", but these are the sorts of casual mistakes reasonable and intelligent people make from time to time. It's only the intellectually insecure who feel compelled to point these things out. I could allude to the fact that you split infinitives all the time, but you probably don't even know what that means. I knew about the origin of the phrase "toe the line" before you ever picked up a thesaurus, so be a big girl, and admit that you waded foolishly into a discussion you knew nothing about, and when you realised how hilariously out of your depth and clueless you were, you resorted to the playground taunts you know best...or worst on your case.

I agree with Jon that the language used by Anderson, in conjunction with the reality of the situation, merely indicates that since he wasn't there at the time to form his own opinion, the correctness of his stated conclusion relies on the correctness of Monro's opinion

No, it doesn't.

It absolutely does not.

Familiarise yourself properly with the debate or else don't post. Anderson had the opportunity to agree either with Bond's conclusion or Monro's. He was not duty-bound to agree with either, and he was definitely not the sort to follow the views of his superiors without a thought. Anderson wasn't there at the time - yes, we know, well done - but for the "slavishly Bond argument" to work (y'know, the argument you haven't really followed, which is why you don't venture an opinion on it), he would have assumed in his absence that Bond, and not Monro, was correct.

Now, if you can stick to the actual topic, that would be a start.

[caz]

...you're not deflating my ego, or bringing me down a peg or two, or making me feel small, or anything like that.

No need to, Ben, when you do all the hard work yourself.

Those winter nights in Croydon must just fly by...

Since I only post during the day, haven't lived in Croydon for two and a half years and it's more like Spring here, I wouldn't know.

But I do know four identical howlers from the odd typo.

Look, I've explained already that that I made a typo. Sometimes - shock horror! - I make the same typo twice as a natural and understandable consequence of writing in haste.

Who do you think you're fooling, apart from yourself?

It's only the intellectually insecure who feel compelled to point these things out.

The need came over me when for about the twentieth time I found you compelled to add (sic) when quoting from one of Jon's posts - this time over on the Red Hanky thread. In the same post - #474 on page 48 - you wrote that the authorities "towed this line" after writing the same phrase in #463 on page 47. So according to you, your typos have included "towing" for "toeing" (with the w instead of the e) and "towed" for "toed" (inserting a rogue w through haste), and on each occasion you wanted to say that the authorities were "toeing" some line or other? What did you even mean by that?

I could allude to the fact that you split infinitives all the time, but you probably don't even know what that means.

Allude away. I'm perfectly aware when I do it, and once again you show your inability to grasp that language use evolves over time, because split infinitives are no longer considered incorrect, or poor grammar, when used to make a sentence flow better and be simpler to understand.

Anderson had the opportunity to agree either with Bond's conclusion or Monro's.

Not really, since as he said himself, he was not there to form a qualified opinion of his own.

He was not duty-bound to agree with either...

...which is another reason why he didn't.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

No need to, Ben, when you do all the hard work yourself.

I do love the maturity of this debating technique: "I know you are, but what am I?". Gave up on that one at primary school myself...

The need came over me when for about the twentieth time I found you compelled to add (sic) when quoting from one of Jon's posts - this time over on the Red Hanky thread. In the same post - #474 on page 48 - you wrote that the authorities "towed this line" after writing the same phrase in #463 on page 47.

If you consider these desperate nitpicking antics a productive expenditure of you're time - even numbering them so an imaginary captive audience can have ease of reference!- then I'm sorry for you. But for anyone else whose lives might be empty at the moment, I'll explain: occasionally, I type my posts into a word document, enabling me to save it should any hiccup occur and the post is lost. The software I use has an auto-correct function with words it doesn't recognise, and if for instance I write a word such as "toeing" in haste, and I end up with "toing" (or even "teoing" if I've been on the sauce!), auto-correct will kick in and assume I meant to write its nearest recognisable word, which in this case was "towing". I would then completely miss this auto-correction when posting my response until someone with far too much time on her hands decides to pick a fight about it.

Either that, or I make a casual typo, based on the fact that the two letters are next to each other on the keyboard.

Tragic to have to explain that which everyone else understands, and I'm afraid a very low care factor will be register in the event that one of my usual shadows rejects this explanation, but onwards we plod.

Allude away. I'm perfectly aware when I do it, and once again you show your inability to grasp that language use evolves over time, because split infinitives are no longer considered incorrect, or poor grammar, when used to make a sentence flow better and be simpler to understand.

This is absolutely priceless.

So it's okay to be crap at the things you're crap at - in terms of the written word - because "language use has evolved" to facilitate your crapness, but woe betide anyone who makes a casual typo? How jolly convenient for you. It's just too bad it's utter nonsense. The split infinitive is as clumsy and erroneous as it's always been, and if you can't help using one to avoid making a sentence look incomprehensible and tortured, then I'm afraid a re-education might be in order.

Not really, since as he said himself, he was not there to form a qualified opinion of his own.

Oh for feck's sake.

Look, Anderson had the opportunity to assume, in his absence that either Bond was correct, or that Monro was. He chose Monro, ergo the argument that Anderson was a sponge to whatever Bond opined is utterly nullified by the evidence.

But I think that's just about you done with this off-topic nonsense, which you only brought up because you know how unfamiliar you are with the material we're discussing. It's back to Diary World for you, I'm afraid.

[Wickerman]

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

[Ben]

Oh no, I did it again! "You're" instead of "your"!

40 lashes please.

[Scott Nelson]

Never mind that. What size shoes do you wear?

[Ben]

Size 12, Scott, from heel to tow.

(Oh bugger, I did it again! )

[caz]

...occasionally, I type my posts into a word document, enabling me to save it should any hiccup occur and the post is lost. The software I use has an auto-correct function with words it doesn't recognise, and if for instance I write a word such as "toeing" in haste, and I end up with "toing" (or even "teoing" if I've been on the sauce!), auto-correct will kick in and assume I meant to write its nearest recognisable word, which in this case was "towing". I would then completely miss this auto-correction when posting my response until someone with far too much time on her hands decides to pick a fight about it.

Good grief, Ben. You could do a masterclass on digging oneself a bigger hole. You really should have stuck with the casual typo excuse, or at least tried the auto-correct one first. May I suggest more haste equals less speed, so it would save you time - not to say face and lengthy explanations - in future if you simply previewed your posts quickly before submitting them? Then you could check for typos and auto-corrections to make sure they were not all doing letter perfect impressions of common howlers and making you come across as a complete tool.

That still wouldn't explain why you would have used "toeing" the line in the context of following or going along with one or other position, when it means putting one's toe on the starting line and not over it, or playing by the rules.

The split infinitive is as clumsy and erroneous as it's always been...

Just as I suspected, you spend too much time posting on Hutch threads, and trying to explain away your howlers, to keep abreast of how the language is changing all the time. If splitting an infinitive looks clumsy it's best avoided, but there are occasions when it reads far better in a sentence than a strained alternative that tries to impress but fails. In any case the 'rule' was just a backward nod to the Latin, where infinitives are all one word and cannot therefore be split by an adverb. As that's not the case in English and we are no longer under Roman control, it was probably high time we made better use of our own infinitives and not be slaves to Latin restrictions.

Look, Anderson had the opportunity to assume, in his absence that either Bond was correct, or that Monro was. He chose Monro, ergo the argument that Anderson was a sponge to whatever Bond opined is utterly nullified by the evidence.

This has nothing to do with sponges, or toeing lines. Anderson was only assuming Monro's opinion was correct for the purpose of his stated conclusion. He was not agreeing or disagreeing - because he explained he was absent and could not venture an opinion of his own.

But I think that's just about you done with this off-topic nonsense, which you only brought up because you know how unfamiliar you are with the material we're discussing. It's back to Diary World for you, I'm afraid.

You wished.

When you stop peppering other people's posts with (sic) for every teeny tiny typo they make, I will stop drawing extra attention to your hilarious bloomers.

Seems fair to me.

Love,

Caz
X

PS Oh and your beloved Canter, who can do no wrong in your eyes, believes the psychology in the diary is spot on for the ripper. I don't, but then very few do.

[Ben]

Actually, I love Kim Rossmo a little more, but I'm still fond of Canter, diary dopeyness aside!

[Ben]

Good grief, Ben. You could do a masterclass on digging oneself a bigger hole.

Right, your literary - errrm - "genius" (?) has r-e-a-l-l-y got me on the ropes...

Look, whatever this is, this following me around all over the place, fixating on every tiny little thing I write - lovely and all that, but what was once tremendously flattering is now a little off-putting, especially when you bring anatomy and genitalia into the discussion. You've already mentioned your "arse" (shudder), and now you're calling me a "tool", which besides being a personal insult of the type prohibited by the boards takes us pretty much into the gutter as far as thread content goes.

My "lengthy explanations" are in response to your sad, if not entirely unamusing, attempts to find fault with my writing, which are forever getting burped straight back in your face. You don't understand what a split infinitive is, and you attempt to explain the gaff on the grounds that language has suddenly evolved to suit your own unique style, or lack thereof. Then when you tried to criticise my use of the word "churlish", it transpired that you knew neither its full meaning or even the origin of the word.

""

You will therefore forgive me if I don't pay too much attention if you're ill-equipped to understand what a typo is, and how an auto-correct may affect a post, even if it isn't immediately clear - despite editing - that an error has been made. These really shouldn't be fabulously taxing concepts to embrace, but if every post I make sends you racing for the thesaurus (which you probably tear up in frustration when you realise how ill-informed you are), I'm afraid I don't hold up much hope.

That still wouldn't explain why you would have used "toeing" the line in the context of following or going along with one or other position, when it means putting one's toe on the starting line and not over it, or playing by the rules.

I used "toeing the line" in the context I outlined very carefully. My point was that Anderson was not the sort of individual to conform to any rules or to "toe the line". We may take the rule, in this case, to mean the authority represented by the police commissioner.

(Oh but Ben, in post #465 at line 72 at 2:31pm blah blah blah)

If splitting an infinitive looks clumsy it's best avoided, but there are occasions when it reads far better in a sentence than a strained alternative that tries to impress but fails.

There shouldn't be a "strained alternative" to a basic rule of grammatical construction, and if you're failing to impress, you simply need to work on it. Simple as. With yours in particular, it's very obvious how you ought to have worded the sentence in order to prevent the split infinitive.

In any case the 'rule' was just a backward nod to the Latin, where infinitives are all one word and cannot therefore be split by an adverb.

Yep, well Googled, that girl!

You've finally caught up.

Good to see.

"it was probably high time we made better use of our own infinitives and not be slaves to Latin restrictions."

Yeah, that's right. Let's just change ancient and well established rules concerning grammar and style in order to suit Caz's shortcomings in that area. Language is indeed changing - hooray - but not according to your fascinating rule-book.

Anderson was only assuming Monro's opinion was correct for the purpose of his stated conclusion.

But what influenced his stated conclusion? He didn't just conjure it up from the aether. Something led him to assume, in his absence, that Monro's conclusion was the correct one, despite having the opportunity to assume Dr. Bond's contrary opinion was correct.

You wished.

I didn't actually.

This has become too much fun.

You keep spending your days on me, and let's keep dancing here until the posts number in their thousands. It's essential to me, of course, that Hutchinson threads dominate ripper discussion, but I need your help!

Smooches

XXXXXXXXX

[babybird67]

oh...

how I have missed the Hutch threads

[Ben]

And how I've missed you, Beebs! x

[babybird67]

missed you too Benz

and Garry x

[babybird67]

Hutchinson

he really is an enduring suspect. I was reading one of the other threads earlier about killers injecting themselves into investigations and I was thinking at the end of this thread I am going to mention Christie, then before I got to the end of it, someone had already made that point!

Do we know who would be the earliest documented killer that we know has injected themselves into an investigation as a witness?